An Ontario Superior Court judge has found a man not guilty of a sexual interference charge that dated back nearly 17 years to a tumultuous family gathering on the Wasauksing First Nation, a weekend witnesses later dubbed “Fight Weekend.” In a decision1 released on September 5, 2025, Justice R. A. Bellows acquitted F. D. after a six day trial, concluding that while he did not believe all of the accused’s evidence, the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies and conflicting accounts of the night in question.
The charge stemmed from an allegation that sometime during a weekend in July 2008, F. D. touched B. B., then seven years old, for a sexual purpose. The alleged incident took place at the accused’s family cottage during a large gathering of approximately 25 to 30 family members and friends. The trial, which heard from six witnesses, reconstructed the events of the weekend, which was marked by a large, late night physical altercation that became a key reference point for the memories of those who testified.
The complainant, B. B., who is now 24, testified that she had travelled to the cottage with her mother, L. B., for the weekend gathering. She recalled being put to bed in a room with several other young children. She testified that she was awake when F. D., a man she knew as “Big Daddy,” entered the room. She alleged that he approached the top bunk bed where she was lying, pulled up her nightdress, rubbed her stomach in a circular motion, and then inserted two fingers into her vagina. B. B. also testified that he was touching his own penis with his other hand during the assault. She told the court that when she asked for her mother, F. D. shushed her and threatened that if she said anything, something would happen to her younger sibling.
A short time later, her mother, L. B., entered the room and asked if F. D. had touched her. B. B. testified that she lied and said no, explaining that at seven years old, she was scared, unsure if what happened was wrong, and worried about ruining her mother’s friendship with F. D.’s daughter. The full disclosure of the alleged assault did not occur until more than a decade later, on New Year’s Eve between 2019 and 2020. It was then that B. B.’s husband first revealed the allegation to L. B., which B. B. subsequently confirmed to her mother. The police were contacted in 2021.
The complainant’s mother, L. B., provided a detailed narrative of the weekend. She was a high school friend of the accused’s daughter, J. D-G. L. B. testified that on the Saturday night, after the children were put to bed, the adults were drinking and socializing around a campfire. She stated that a group decided to go for a night swim and that she witnessed J. D-G. ask her father, F. D., to stay behind and watch the sleeping children, which he agreed to do. According to L. B., upon the group’s return, a verbal argument between J. D-G. and her husband erupted and became the central event of the weekend. L. B. testified that during this argument, an intoxicated J. D-G. disclosed that her father had been raping her since she was a teenager.
This alleged disclosure prompted L. B. to become concerned for the children’s safety. She told the court she immediately went inside the cottage, confronted F. D., and then went into the children’s bedroom to check on her daughter. It was then that she woke B. B. and asked her if F. D. had touched her. B. B. twice denied that he had. L. B. testified that her boyfriend picked her and B. B. up early the next morning because she felt she could not stay any longer.
The defence presented a starkly different version of events. F. D. took the stand and completely denied the allegation, stating that he not only did not assault B. B., but that he had no opportunity to do so. He testified that his now deceased wife was present that weekend and was in charge of the children sleeping inside the cottage. He claimed he spent the entire evening outside at the campfire with his other daughter, B. D., both of whom were sober. He testified that during the period the other adults went for a swim, he and B. D. took her car for a test drive to nearby Parry Sound to get coffee from Tim Hortons so he, a mechanic, could diagnose a transmission issue. He denied being asked to watch the children and denied that L. B. ever confronted him inside the cottage that night.
F. D.’s daughter, B. D., largely corroborated his account. She testified that she and her father were together at the fire, that they went to Parry Sound for coffee, and that her mother was inside the cottage with the children. She stated she was with her father for the duration of the evening and that he would have had no opportunity to be alone in the children’s bedroom.
The accused’s other daughter, J. D-G., also testified for the defence. She admitted to being extremely intoxicated that night, rating herself a nine on a scale of one to ten, with ten being comatose. She denied ever disclosing any past abuse by her father to L. B., and she claimed that L. B. had already retreated to her tent for the night before the argument with her husband became physical. She maintained that the family only began referring to the event as “Fight Weekend” after the allegations against her father surfaced years later.
In his reasons for judgment, Justice Bellows carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of each witness under the legal framework established in the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. W.(D.). The judge found significant issues with the testimony from the defence witnesses. He rejected much of F. D.’s evidence, finding it was “tailored to ensure that he had no opportunity” to commit the offence. He also found the evidence of J. D-G. to be unreliable due to her extreme intoxication and what he described as embellishments.
However, the judge also found critical problems with the Crown’s case. He determined that L. B.’s dramatic account of J. D-G.’s disclosure and her subsequent confrontation with F. D. was inconsistent with B. B.’s own testimony. B. B. had testified that she did not hear her mother’s voice during any confrontation and only heard a commotion outside after the alleged assault had occurred and her mother had already been in to check on her. This discrepancy led the judge to reject L. B.’s narrative of why she checked on her daughter.
Ultimately, the decision turned on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While Justice Bellows expressed fewer concerns with B. B.’s credibility, noting she testified in a reasonably straightforward manner, he did find challenges with her evidence. He pointed to inconsistencies in her sequencing of events between her police statement and her court testimony, as well as logistical questions about how the assault could have physically occurred as she described it.
Because he rejected much of the accused’s testimony, Justice Bellows considered whether the remaining evidence, taken as a whole, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He concluded it was not. The evidence from F. D. and his daughter B. D., while not fully accepted, raised some doubt. The inconsistencies between the accounts of B. B. and her mother weakened the Crown’s case further. The judge stated that while he might find that the assault “may, or even probably, happened,” the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to meet the very high burden required for a criminal conviction. He therefore found F. D. not guilty.
Read more crime stories here.
